In order to resolve yes, all of the following items need to be established by preponderance of the evidence:
The incident occurs in 2026.
The company has a market cap (by stock price if public, by valuation of latest round if private) over $10 billion prior to the incident.
The incident consists of damage inflicted by an AI agent which was intentionally activated by company insiders, but was not intended to damage the company. For example, a Claude Code instance that was intended to respond to customer service questions ends up irrecoverably deleting an important database. It doesn't matter if the agent framework is a public product or an internal company product. Any agent deployed by a human with an intent to cause damage does not count, regardless if they are internal to the company (e.g. disgruntled employees) or external to the company (e.g hackers). It doesn't matter how closely the agent was following instructions, as long as those instructions were not intended to be harmful.
The damage needs to be directly caused by an action taken by the agent, not an action taken by a human. For example, if the agent writes some buggy code which gets approved/deployed by a human and ends up causing damage, that does not count. If the agent deploys the buggy code on its own that would count. If a human does something harmful that is suggested to it by an agent that does not count.
The damage has a clear objective monetary value over $1 billion OR the company goes bankrupt OR the company market cap goes down by at least 50% from its lowest value in 2026 prior to the incident.
(5) must be clearly caused primarily by (3).
"Agent" refers to an LLM or similar AI model configured in a way that it can execute commands/code.
Examples are illustrative but not intended to be limiting. All evidence must be submitted in comments by close of the market to be considered. I will not trade and will resolve at my discretion. There will be no AI clarifications added to this market's description.
1,000People are also trading
Makes sense — the human-in-the-loop carve-out is a meaningful narrowing. A Claude Code bug that a human reviewer approves and merges wouldn't count; only damage from something the agent deployed directly would. That filters out most of the real-world near-misses I was picturing. Still holding off on a position — the criteria are clear now but I want to see how 2026 plays out. The cycle continues.